Messages

1

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Pentastar Alignment OP?

« on: April 17, 2018, 09:37:08 AM »

This just indicates that fighter/bomber spam is still way too effective - easiest solution would be to reduce the fighter damage type vs all capital armor /shield types to 0.1. Makes sense as well since a squardon of fighters basically has a x12 modifier due to its unit count.

• Reply
• Quote

2

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / A "simple" suggestion regarding damage consistancy

« on: January 28, 2018, 11:00:39 AM »

First, thank you for still continuing with EaW despite its age and issues. Since I heard Corey in one of his playthroughs talk about damage types and some potential overhaul in the works, I thought I'd chime in briefly. There are mainly 2 things I don't like regarding the latest full release, and that is in space, hardpoint health - and health generally - means jack, because hardpoints blow up almost instantly. Against capital ships / frigates it makes sense, but I think one of the reasons why fighters are so strong still lies in the fact that their lasers contribute way too much damage against shieldless targets, because their damage type has no negative modifier against capital ship's armor type. Secondly, on the ground its even more bizarre as some damage types get insane modifiers whilst others don't, resulting in units either dealing massive or almost no damage. There are generally way too many damage and armor types on the ground, so, since you are planning on balancing ground stuff more, I'd think it would be a good idea to change all ground units armor and (projectile) damage type to a more consistent layout, ie. a armor type specific for infantry, light, medium, heavy vehicles. Right now almost every ground unit has its own armor type and the projectile damage types vary massively in effectiveness against those types. Streamlining that would be quite a tedous task but would result in a less instant kill style ground combat, where micro could play a role instead of just ramming more stuff into it. Thoughts?

• Reply
• Quote

3

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Ship Ability Lists & Discussion

« on: July 03, 2015, 05:47:53 PM »

Some more or less random ideas for several Imperial ships: I'd really like to see the Carrack with a portion of Laser damage to make it a all purpose support ship as well as a bigger difference between VSD 1 and 2 like the VSD 1 having a higher planet bombing capability or a Concussion missile barrage ability. I do wonder about the Allegiance's role a bit - will it be more of a defensive ship like the Praetor with a taunt or a offensive powerhouse ? Either way it should probably have the Ion Bolt ability, overwhelm, a passive to increase its stats further (?) and a tweaked version of finest hour with shield/hull regen and bonus damage.

• Reply
• Quote

4

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Tech Tree Suggestions

« on: June 29, 2015, 08:55:33 AM »

Ok I should really look more closely on seemingly empty ability slots, turns out the Praetor has a taunt     With sitting around I mean they always lag behind the rest of my capital ships and forcing me to maneuver them in a position where they jump first, thats why I really hope the Allegiance will be a tad faster.

• Reply
• Quote

5

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Tech Tree Suggestions

« on: June 29, 2015, 06:53:13 AM »

I should probably clarify: I don't think the Vindicator is a bad ship in itself, its just that a Strike Cruiser has almost double the amount of shields and a pretty powerful tech later for a relatively minor increase in cost, yet it is a frigate. It just really doesn't fit the Cruiser image for me. Not to mention that (IMO) both ships roles overlap and the Strike Cruiser scales better lategame. The Praetor itself is a damagesponge, that fulfills its role rather lackluster because of its slow speed and as far as I see it with partially not yet implemented ability icons, it also cannot taunt enemies to attack it, so most of the time it sits around doing nothing. I totally didn't see that the Acclamator had a ability right from the beginning to get one additional squadron so its fine as a carrier. I'm just wondering what the purpose of that ability is supposed to be instead of just giving it 3 squadrons right from the start.

• Reply
• Quote

6

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Tech Tree Suggestions

« on: June 28, 2015, 04:18:08 PM »

wow that was a crazy fast answer, didn't really expect that 
Well, I tend to have a rather broad view of things like doctrines, but I definitley understand where you're coming from and why you're limiting the scope of styles for the Remnant. I guess what I'd really like to see is having those "style" choices a bit more effect than currently, but let's see what Ascendancy 1.0 brings. Throwing the Vindicator, Acclamator and Praetor out is a win for me anyway, because honestly, the Vindicator is rather weak as a cruiser - I'd take a Strike Cruiser any day over it -, the Allegiance just looks and feels much more "imperial" to me and the Acclamator, well I know its supposed to be a carrier, but with only one squadron at a time anything else with 1 squadron is about as good if not better.

Btw, tech tree balance hasn't really been a focus point yet, has it? The Remnant has zero techs that increase the defense of its ships whereas the Republic has individually stronger ships later but also quite beefy shield upgrade techs and I'm not sure the damage upgrades from the Remnant can keep up with that.. Adding hull upgrade techs for the Remnant doesn't seem to make much sense lorewise, so how is it intended to keep it balanced? By having a larger fleet through the brutally powerful command/fleet capacity upgrades? Or is the Allegiance going to be the defensive cornerstone that allows the ISD 2's to survive a fleet of Nebula/BAC's? The Praetor right now is so sluggish that it can barely keep up with ISD's.

• Reply
• Quote

7

Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Tech Tree Suggestions

« on: June 28, 2015, 01:33:37 PM »

No idea if it's a good idea to post in a thread is old, but the topic fits, so...
While playing Ascendancy 0.95 lately the Remnant tech tree with its different "Leader Techs" began bugging me a bit, because it just seems so odd that Daala would just affect diplomacy or Thrawn only frigates. Essentially, i guess, these techs boil down to a "style choice" for the Remnant, so I think they should be either be more expensive or ideally split up in longer tech chains leading to a quite drastic gameplay change.
For example, for me Thrawn always was the "Elitist Leader", where everything had to be at maximum performance, even if it meant slower training whereas Daala would just take whatever she had and ram it frontally in the enemy. Fitting that in the tech tree isn't going to be easy due to the way it is split between civilian and military, but separate tech paths focusing on having individually stronger ships at the expense of building time/cost or weaker but cheaper ships could be very worthwile. Part of this is already in the mod, with faster building but less hull /regen, but new techs could be something like "Thorough Training: Ships of "subclass [Cruiser , etc]" build 10% slower but have 1o% increased stats" 2 Ranks. If that proves to powerful, maybe add increased supply/upkeep to the negatives of the tech. Another idea would be different abilities for ships, but I have no idea if thats even possible. Daala Doctrine : Ships gain the "ram" ability, but lose access to "evasive maneuvering: ability under thrawn doctrine that increases evasion chance or damage reduction, something like that. This should be reflected in the government section as well, Daala doctrine having techs focusing on quick/cheap structure production and high culture resistance and Thrawn more on culture spread / higher allegiance and more effective resource gathering. With those two as the extremes, Pellaeon would fit somewhere in between with a focus on diplomacy and defense.

• Reply
• Quote

8

Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / MandalorOrdo - Imperial Ship roles

« on: September 01, 2012, 05:36:13 AM »

Well, I'm kind of a newcomer here, but first of all I'd like to thank the authors of TR. The amount of detail and changes is quite impressive and I like the mod a lot more than the original game where the Rebel Alliance just spammend 200 bombers at you and killed infinite numbers of star destroyers -,- .
Regard that, however I have a problem understanding the changes of the smaller IR frigates:

Carrack Class Cruiser, Strike Class Cruiser and Vindicator Frigates are pretty much the same ship with minor differences in cost/pop. In comparison the Carrack is inferior to both the Striker and the Vindicator and even taken the cost/pop in relation just ineffective. Same for the non-Katana Dreadnaught. In 1.3 the Carrack was useful due to its flexibiltiy - ion cannons and turbolasers against frigates, laser cannons vs fighters. Striker vs Vindicator is fine, its essentially fighters + firepower for the Striker vs durability on the Vindicator. The Dreadnaught does essentially the same as the Vindicator or the Striker, just without ion cannons, which seems pointless to me. I'd rather prefer it if the Dreadnaught would lose some turbolasers in exchange for laser cannons, because as it stands now, the IR has a distinctive lack of all purpose frigates and anti-starfighter ships. Defender and Preybirds are nice, but cannot compare to E-Wings or K-Wing Bombers.
In that regard, has something changed abot the Immobilizer? It is extremly expensive now, but still not even as durable as a nebulon b frigate and even though it has amazing anti-starfighter weaponry at least for me it never actually fires them.

• Reply
• Quote